A different perspective

[Tony Dismukes]

One topic that seems to come up frequently in threads discussing various traditional martial arts is the idea of original intent. What was the original purpose of a certain technique? What knowledge wasn't passed down from the old masters to modern practitioners? What was the intention behind particular movements in a kata. Which lineage retains the secret teachings of the founder? Who is qualified to change the way a particular aspect of the art is taught?

It's all very interesting from an outside perspective, but very alien to my personal experience.

I train multiple arts, but my home base is BJJ. And BJJ is an art in a constant state of evolution.

I'm not talking just about the development of new techniques and tactics which are primarily aimed at sport competition under the standard BJJ tournament rules. Since I primarily train BJJ as a fighting art, I could ignore those if I wanted. I'm talking about things like the body mechanics behind fundamental techniques and basic tactical doctrine applicable to both street self-defense and MMA. Much of what I learned when I started BJJ 26 years ago is no longer considered best practices. This is the result of BJJ moving from a niche art dominated by a single family to an art practiced internationally by millions of people worldwide. Those people are continually experimenting, trying everything from minor technical tweaks to established moves, to brand new techniques and tactics, to new ways to conceptualize and teach the movements. And these changes are being tested - in grappling competitions, in MMA, in self-defense, in law-enforcement, and so on. And then the methods which seem to work best are shared via video for practitioners around the world to learn and test and potentially improve on.

All of which leads to a situation where I, having been a BJJ black belt for 11 years now, often feel like an imposter. Not because I didn't learn the details of the original techniques taught by Helio Gracie. But because I can't keep up with the continued development of the art. Honestly, it would be difficult even for someone who trains full time to keep up with everything. But I'm 60 years old with a day job. I'm only on the mats for about 6 hours per week these days and I spend about 1-3 hours per week watching video in an effort to keep up my continuing education on what the worldwide BJJ laboratories are coming up with.

I deal with this by focusing my efforts on the technical details which improve the efficiency of the fundamental movements that I've already been training for years, concepts which help me understand and implement those moves, improved methods for teaching, and new techniques only when they offer a lot of bang for the buck in terms of complementing my existing repertoire and don't require a lot of athleticism or time to make functional. That still leaves a ton of new developments that I try to monitor enough to be sort of aware of, but don't really have any kind of in-depth understanding or mastery of.

It does feel like a bit of a Red Queen's race. (For the non-Carroll fans, that refers to a situation where you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. ) But at least I'll never have to worry about getting bored or thinking that I know everything.

 

[drop bear]

With the change in focus. The role of the black belt has changed.

Where the black belt used to be the font of information. From the founder to the black belt to the student.

The black belt now is a piece in the puzzle. Everyone is responsible for innovation. And the black belt kind of just herds cats.

 

[isshinryuronin]

One topic that seems to come up frequently in threads discussing various traditional martial arts is the idea of original intent. What was the original purpose of a certain technique? What knowledge wasn't passed down from the old masters to modern practitioners? What was the intention behind particular movements in a kata. Which lineage retains the secret teachings of the founder?

Good post. As you were writing it, I also just posted (in the Gen. Choi thread responding to Mr. Weiss) touching upon the underlined questions you posed.

Your question regarding what knowledge the old masters didn't pass on is a good one, and of course, one we will never know the answer to. We do know that some masters knew various kata (having cross trained with other masters) that they did not teach their own students. Sometimes they would teach certain kata to one student, and different kata to another student.

Regarding the passing on of "secret" teachings of the founder, or proprietary knowledge unique to the style, I think while once a thing it is largely irrelevant nowadays given the availability of knowledge and numbers of practitioners. While a school may hold back knowledge to all but their senior blackbelts, no doubt some other school/style has the same knowledge that they see fit to teach to mid-level belts and withhold other knowledge the first school may see as basic.

Your perspective on continued learning/training is quite self-centered - just the thing for one in your position. Concentrating on the most bang for your buck based on your existing wealth of knowledge is IMO the way to go. Too much to know. Depth is better than breadth. Being familiar (but not proficient) with things beyond this is fine. I see it as a sign of professionalism as it aids in evaluating your core skills and how they relate to the general art. "Only six hours per week?" You're doing great!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

With the change in focus. The role of the black belt has changed.

Where the black belt used to be the font of information. From the founder to the black belt to the student.

The black belt now is a piece in the puzzle. Everyone is responsible for innovation. And the black belt kind of just herds cats.

Yep. I tell my students that the dojo is a laboratory and everyone there is responsible for running experiments. Even the new white belts may be junior lab assistants, but that doesn't mean they aren't making valuable discoveries. I tell them that I don't care whether they are "winning" or "losing" their sparring rounds. What I care about is that they are trying things out, seeing what happens, and then reporting back with either discoveries of things that worked or problems they're getting stuck on. I always end class with a short debriefing session after live rounds so that we can debug things that weren't working and share the details of things that did work.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

"Only six hours per week?" You're doing great!

Not that long ago, I used to average 9-12 hours per week. I'd like to get back to at least 8-10 hours, but we'll see how that goes.

 

[skribs]

This is something I wrestle with from the other side. 3-stripe black belt in TKD, 3-stripe blue belt in BJJ. I'm testing for my 4th degree next month.

TKD definitely tends to have a more "cultish" culture than BJJ does. I feel less comfortable asking the "why" question in TKD. Not just in class, but on forums as well. I ask the question on the forums "why do we do this technique this way?" and the answer I get is, "how do you get to black belt and not know that?" So I get discouraged from asking the question.

Techniques in TKD are either "correct" or "incorrect" as per the Master. I've shared this story before. During my brief stint at another school, the Master asked me and a 2nd degree black belt to both demonstrate a back kick. I did a back kick, he did a spinning side kick. The Master described his as "good", but mine as "correct".

I don't really share the same opinion. There's pros and cons to the back kick and the spinning side kick. Thinking of one as superior to the other limits your options. Then I'm in BJJ classes where BJJ black belts are struggling with techniques and asking questions. My Professor (6'2") sometimes teaches techniques that don't work for me (5'5"), but then some of the brown belts show me different ways of doing similar techniques that do work for me. My Professor, 4th degree black belt who has medaled in Worlds, is asking questions and learning new ways of doing things from another black belt he recently brought into our school (who has won Worlds).

When I open my TKD school, I want to create a culture similar to the BJJ school. That's going to require me to use a different kind of curriculum than the one typically used in TKD. I can't just list techniques and create rote memorized combinations and sequences. If I do that, then the only thing my students will learn is what I decided at the moment I printed my curriculum was the best way of doing things. I wouldn't be able to evolve.

 

[skribs]

I think part of the imposter syndrome from BJJ comes from not having a promotion test to prove your skills and knowledge. I never felt like an imposter in TKD or HKD, but I did feel like an imposter blue belt for quite some time. There was a thread in the BJJ forum joking about it. That thread was all in good fun to share funny stories of stupid things I did. The real imposter syndrome was that I was still getting beaten quite easily by those who were still white belts, even those who weren't close to blue. But I am a lot smaller than they are.

I've heard of Roy Dean's crucibles, and I think something like that would help stave off imposter syndrome. If you have an objective event that certifies you as the next belt, it's hard for anyone (including yourself) to argue with your credentials.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not that long ago, I used to average 9-12 hours per week. I'd like to get back to at least 8-10 hours, but we'll see how that goes.

Just an interloper here, not getting involved much beyond this

That is what I use to train in CMA, and that was just at the Guan, that's not counting the hours at home...but that WAS a LLOONNGG time ago... it was great training.

 

[Xue Sheng]

@Tony Dismukes

Guess I lied, because this came to me as I was doing Taijiquan...which I will be returning to as soon as this is posted

Bruce Lee’s idea of taking form other arts to come up with JKD is nothing new in CMA. It is a rather large misconception that CMA styles have not changed since the founder developed and started teaching them. Most of your Baguazhang forms are what Dong Hai Chuan taught and what his students brought with them when they came, and their students likely did the same.

My style of Yang Taijiquan comes form Tung Ying Chieh, and was influenced by Hao style, yet he called it Yang style, and so did the Yang family for that matter. What my shifu learned from Tung Ying Chieh, he also changed a little, But admittedly it is very close to what he as taught. But my shifu once told me “No two people do the form the exactly the same, because no two people are exactly the same”

I have started some training at YMAA and that comes from Yang Jwing Ming. At a seminar recently he talked about how his White Crane influenced his Taijiquan and how he learned Taijiquan form more than wone person over the years. So his Taijiquan is basically his, and likely not exactly the same as his main Shifu.

Heck, I have taken my Yang and combines it with things from other styles (Yang, Wu, Sun, Chen) I trained, that I think should be there from a Martial Arts perspective

My Wing Chun Sifu was a serious Hung Ga guy before getting into Wing Chun. He has added to his Wing Chun, with his Sifu’s approval, qinna and Shuaijiao. And some of the drills and strikes we do are right out of Hung Ga. Ip Man even taught differently to different students. And there are other lineages of Wing Chun that are quite different that what came from Ip Man, so it was changed somewhere, likely more than once

I will say in the case of Taijiquan though, it has over the years changed from what it was to what it is, and although many taijiquan people today (even on MT) will disagree, it has not changed for the better if you are talking martial arts. IMO, in the case of taijiquan, it has degraded since the days of Chen Wangting and Yang Luchan.

S0 things change over time, even in CMA, likely much slower than in BJJ or MMA, but they do change. However, in most cases in CMA, that basics do not change much. It is what is built off of those basic that changes. But even with those changes, those that were training before me, or trained, or are training me, are still relevant and still rather skilled, and well worth listening too.

Note: I absolutely refuse to turn this into a Taijiquan battle or taijiquan political discussion. So if anyone who reads this is upset, make your own dang thread and leave Tony's out of it, because that is not what this thread is about.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Not that long ago, I used to average 9-12 hours per week. I'd like to get back to at least 8-10 hours, but we'll see how that goes.

At 70 I was doing 6 hrs./wk. hard karate training under a strict sensei, 1 hr. softer at home, and 2 hrs. weights at the gym. Now, going on 74 I'm down to 4 hrs. karate at home and 2 hrs. at the gym. each week. Retirement allows for no time limitations on my training, but age requires intermittent rest periods between kata and sets of weights as more effort (physical and will power) is needed for strenuous exercise these days. That's life. It's a battle, but that's what gives it value.

While harder to practice BJJ alone at home, find a way - most of my advanced improvement came thru solo training. Don't ever feel guilty over your training schedule as long as you do what you can. Enjoy it as much as possible, and if not, do it anyway!

 

[windwalker099]

I will say in the case of Taijiquan though, it has over the years changed from what it was to what it is, and although many taijiquan people today (even on MT) will disagree, it has not changed for the better if you are talking martial arts. IMO, in the case of taijiquan, it has degraded since the days of Chen Wangting and Yang Luchan.

Would neither agree nor disagree

All we really have are the stories of the old masters.
Haven’t met many who can do what the old stories talk about.

My last Taiji teacher, Master Zhang Yongliang, could.
He was very private about his practice, never seeking fame or asking for money from those who trained with him.
We practiced outside in one of the many parks in Beijing.

Many in the Taiji community either knew of him or knew him directly.

He once told me, "In this lifetime, you will not get it."
I looked at him and said, "That's okay, in the next life, I will find you."
He laughed.

As time went on, he changed his words, saying, "This will take you about ten years to get."
To me, that was a sign, a small level of understanding had been acknowledged.

Close to 70, now,
finding the deeper you go, the more you start to understand why.

Many practice for different reasons, achieving different outcomes.
Find others practices interesting, can appreciate them,
while not agreeing with them. It's a big park.

time passes so quick...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I tell them that I don't care whether they are "winning" or "losing" their sparring rounds. What I care about is that they are trying things out, seeing what happens, and then reporting back with either discoveries of things that worked or problems they're getting stuck on.

We all try to solve certain problems. This may not have anything to do with MA style.

In the past 20 years, my main interest is to ask my students to develop a strong anti-missile system, so the enemy's missile won't be able to get through. In order to do that, they have to test their anti-missile system against different MA systems.

There are 2 major stratiges on this:

1. Protect your center from inside out - Keep your long guard in your opponent's striking path, so all your opponent's striking has to pass your long guard first.
2. Protect your center from outside in - Allow your opponent's arms to enter into your space, you then use your long guard to knock his punching arm down. This can create your chance to enter.

I don't know how many MA systems had addressed this issue. IMO, this issue just hasn't been addressed enough. If we can make both strategies to work in all situations, the fighting will be simplified. People no longer need to train upward block, downward block, inside out block, outside in block, ... People only need to train "how to use their arm/arms to bounce their opponent's arm away, they then can enter".

 

[hoshin1600]

@Tony Dismukes first post seemed to me to be more commentary then question. But to the question about original intent on movement or within the forms, my opinion is that the "old masters" didn't know what the moves ment. At least pertaining to karate. I don't have enough experience or exposure to Chinese arts to make a claim there.
As the arts moved from China to Okinawa to mainland Japan I can see both a refinement and a degradation of movement. High level Shotokan is really impressive. A single punch has such precision. The movements are highly refined but the refinement is on the single action like a punch or a block. The further back in time you go this refinement and precision decreases but instead I can see complexity and a more wholistic approach. The technique is not just a block and punch combo but rather an entire sequence of actions, that may also include the opponents actions and counter actions, your counter to thier counter, ect, ect..
What I do not see alot in karate is refinement on the technique itself on making it functional within the context of sparring or fighting. I think these things are often just left up to the student to figure out on thier own. Grappling has an advantage in being able to roll and get the other person to tap before there is damage. Karate sparring when done to maintain safety like many schools do today lose the ability to know if something really worked or not.